Examen CTCS Questions PDF

lOMoARcPSD|36295631 Examen CTCS - Questions Critical Thinking in Communication Studies (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Do...

lOMoARcPSD|36295631 Examen CTCS - Questions Critical Thinking in Communication Studies (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 EXAMEN CTCS - Questions 1. Clarify the way political economy and cultural studies looks at science and the world and compare with mainstream social science. Illustrate with an example. From a theoretical point of view, to understand the difference between cultural studies and political economy, we can introduce a number of ‘tension fields’. Tension field n1 is positivism vs interpretivism, n2 is objectivism vs subjectivism and n3 is conflict vs consensus. Positivism vs interpretivism: Positivism states that investigating the social and cultural world is not different to investigating the physical world. The world can be studied through its manifestations. It says that science can make truth claims. In today’s world, there are not scientists that are 100% positivists. Interpretivism focuses on how people make sense of their social worlds and how they express these understandings (meanings). They say that ‘truth’ is constructed in social interactions, ‘facts’ never speak for themselves. The observable world is a manifestation of underlying structures/patterns. Basically, positivism is modeled after natural science, we can make objective observation, we can interpret them objectively, we can make true claims. On the other hand, interpretivism states that we only know what we are thinking, so we need to study how we are making meaning (this is a process that depends on our social reality). We can only make claims or formulate theories that seem plausible. Objectivism vs subjectivism Objectivism holds our mind. Our human agency is mostly determined by circumstances (social structure, the system…). In definitive, we are determined by our environment. Subjectivism gives much more room for our human agency, for free will (or will, even if it’s not completely free). We are influencers of our own environment. Conflict vs consensus Theories that emphasize the conflict between social groups and theorize on how these conflicts may be inherent to the contemporary social system (or to all systems historically). Theories that emphasize the potential of people to build a consensus, to agree. So, if we imagine a coordinate plane with the ‘x’ edges being subjectivism and objectivism, and the ‘y’ edges being conflict/contradiction and consensus/equilibrium, Political Science would be allocated mostly between the objectivism edge and the conflict/contradiction one. Cultural Sciences mostly between subjectivism and conflict/contradiction one. And finally, mainstream theory in the middle of the objectivism and subjectivism (touching both fields) edge connecting with the consensus/equilibrium edge. Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 Mainstream theory is often associated in terms of science, philosophy and epistemology with positivism. Historically, positivism holds that social science has to be modeled after natural sciences. This means that we can learn things about the world objectively (through facts) and that we can establish theories based on those facts. ‘Scientific knowledge is achieved by the rational evaluation of empirical evidence. Application of this knowledge enables us to control both the natural and social worlds, to bend them to our needs. All vestiges of unscientific thought, and especially traditional religion as a guide to human action, are to be abandoned.’ Basically (from the Marxist perspective), the positivist theory wants us to believe that it’s possible to have one objective social science, but it’s actually a one-dimensional view that wants to mask that there are other perspectives and theories possible. Positivism is more of an ideology than it is a science, because it tries to impose a view on us, that according to Halfpenny is a form of instrumental rationality (a rationality that serves different purposes), so therefore it’s oppressive. 2. What are the two contemporary definition of political economy and how do they relate to classical (Marxist and non-Marxist) economy. There are two contemporary definitions of political economy: Economic policy: intervention of government in the economy. This is the definitions that is used the least, not very popular anymore. Political aspects of the economy: the interconnection of the political and the economic. More inspired by Marxist theories. Political field being largely influenced by economic relations. Both definitions are valid, but steam from historically different theoretical traditions In order to understand this dual meaning, we need to go back to the origins. It is a confusing concept. It contains two concepts in one Epistemology of the concept (ancient Greek) - Oikos: household - Polis: city (state) Dutch term (perfect synonym of economy): 'staathuishoudkunde', the knowledge of the householding of the state The term political economy corresponds with a social reality. In the Early modern era (17th- 18th century): the boundaries of the economy still largely coincide with the boundaries of the state; the economy is governed by the State. There was not distinction between the Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 state and the economy because the State was really governed by the political elite (nobility and the king). There were geographical boundaries that were different between the economy and the state: the economy is international, but the states are still national. The economists of the 19th century and before were consequently all called (and called themselves) 'political economists’ Example of an early definition of the concept What is political economy about? It is about the physical well… it is about the material world and how we manage to transform it into well-beings for human so far, the government can produce them. ‘The physical well-being of man, so far as it can be produced by his government, is the object of Political Economy.’ Simonde de Sismondi (1815) Economic evolution shows that Industrialisation and the development of capitalism lead to the dissociation of the political and the economic. The term of economic policy becomes outdated due to industrialization. And two different economic theories will emerge. That is why we get this dual meaning This leads to two different economic theories: Classical economics (non-marxist): theory in support of the retreat of the state from the economy Marxist (political) economy: a reaction against the consequences of that retreat State is allowed to correct ‘market failure’, in some instances to provide a public service 3. Explain how the (neo)classical economics transpire in political theory and subsequently how that way of thinking is transposed in media theory. From Classical to Neo- Classical one can observe a growing division of labour. Adam Smith observes a changing economy, characterized by industrialization, and which leads to an increasing division of labour. The division of a complex production process into a number of simpler tasks each one of which is undertaken by a different individual who typically specializes in one or a limited amount of tasks, with increased efficiency as an effect. This evolution also coincides with local/regional specialization- factories in different geographical areas (internationalization of the economy). A new type of economic organization can be observed. This division of labor lays the foundation of a market economy in which specialized production units are spread over larger and larger geographical areas (depending on resources etc.), leading to massive increases in the volume and variety of production and the importance of markets (trade and Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 commerce). The capitalist market economy was shaping up and Smith's assumption was that if the state would retreat from the economy, the market would generate an economic optimum: market equilibrium. In regards to the dissociation of state and economy, Adam Smith offers the first important articulation of capitalist market theory; “Laissez-faire, laissez- aller”: the state should retreat from the economy. Thus Smith lays the foundation for the formulation at the turn of the 19th century of the law of supply and demand. Adam Smith lays foundations for classical economy theory hereby the origins of political economy lay in the combination of government policy and change in use The term 'neo-classical economics' was introduced at the turn of the 19th century by economists that developed the ‘marginalist model’ of economics and wanted to distinguish them from these 'old school’ (classical) (political) economists. The Laws of supply and demand are as follow; if supply excesses demand (surplus), producers will reduce production, to meet actual demand. If supply is below demand, (shortage) producers will increase supply, in order to meet demand. The marginalist model dictates that demand is reversely proportional to price. The marginal cost is the cost of producing one more unit, the marginal utility; the value of purchasing on more units, market equilibrium; according to neoclassical economy, the supply and demand mechanism provides the most efficient economic outcomes possible. Satisfaction for society is maximized, at minimum cost. The model assumes that all markets are in all equilibrium (including the labour market) A formal model is based on the following assumptions; if the market is left to play, without external intervention (of governments), market equilibrium will arise. Reversely, any intervention will disrupt the market and prevent equilibrium to arise. However, this is a formal model (that is theoretical, mathematical). Conditions to make the model work are never met in practice. A critique on this however states that the theory assumes that all markets are in equilibrium and that the markets work without disruption. This is why the government has to retreat- because it disrupts the market and stops the market from reaching the equilibrium. This doesn't work in practice- perfect on paper but not in reality. These assumptions lead to the perfect competition. - There are many players and no player is more powerful than the other - All players are rational and pursue their self-interest. - The markets are transparent, and everyone is fully informed. However, realistically there are not many players in all markets- e.g. in the media market- monopolies, people don’t always know what their best interest is- advertising make wants that do not correspond with rational or effective needs, not everyone is fully informed of what is happening! Secrets are always used to increase competitiveness In regards to the role of the government the laissez-faire doctrine has been adapted to the reality of the market so in practice, governments intervene in the economy in order to correct market failure (e.g. subsidies for cultural products), create market conditions (e.g. anti-trust policies in the media), protect against social injustice (e.g. rules on racial discrimination) and act as a participant (e.g. public service broadcast) Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 This economic model has had an historical influence on political thinking and on thinking about the political role of the media. As a transposition to political science, the rational choice theory is presented. To establish the roles in comparison; producers are like politicians and consumers like voters/electorate. The political ‘market’ will balance out the interest’s peoples. People will rationally agree on the basis of consensus (point of equilibrium) and engage in political debate and the media are neutral players in a free market of ideas On the other hand, pluralist theory recognizes the existence of multiple interest groups in society; bounded rationality but maintains that consensus can be reached within the context of reasonable debate. The pluralist media theories show competing interest are (or should be) represented through different media outlets (in a balanced way) and the state is allowed to correct ‘market failure’, in some instances to provide a public service / anti-trust law 4. Explain how the Marxist economic theory transpires in political thought and how way of thinking is transposed in media theory. The Marxist economic theory starts with the simple idea that a mode of production is defined by division of labour and property and control. The people who own the means of production are the people in control. This power dimension is especially important, because through exploitation from the people in control (the capitalists) the worker will never get the value of the full labour. According to his labour theory of value. The value of labour is time. The time a worker puts in his labour to create an object from scratch. After creating a product, it is sold and the one that owns the means of production appropriates a part of the value that has been produced by the labourer in his or her labour time. The means of production are a fundamental characteristic of any society. The relations of production are always relations of power. These relations are articulated in dominance and they transpire in the entire society, in political relations for instance, but also in the media. If we want to apply the Marxist theory on the media the central issue would be the one of control. Who controls the media, The owners of capital or the democrats? The media is also looked at as a vehicle of ideology, it’s a way for the economic elite and the political economy to divulge their ideology and to turn it into the dominant ideology in society. And this would also be supported by concentration tendencies in the media. The control of the media is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few groups. Concentration which was also an important element in the Marxist theory, because concentration tendencies in capitalism tend to lead to monopoly power. The free market has an inherent tendency of eliminating itself because instead of having many enterprises that have no excessive power, we end up with a few enterprises which have all the power. The concept of commodification is also an important element if we want to understand how the Marxist economic theory affects media theory. Commodification occurs when a good or a service is turned into something that can be sold. And the influence of market mechanisms on the media is operated primarily through the process of commodification. A Public good is Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 something that is owned by everybody. An example would be information, it is a public good unless someone finds a way to commodify it and turn it into a private good. This happens in the media when information is repackaged, it is put into a different format; a book, a journal, a television program etc.; after that a copyright applies to it and that is how a public good turns into a private good to make a profit out of it. There are different types of commodification that can appear in the media such as: the commodification of content where companies create content for which audiences are willing to pay for instance Netflix or a newspaper, commodification of attention: where for instance newspapers sell the attention of their audiences to advertisers, commodification of audiences: where the data of your customers becomes a commodity that is sold to big companies and commodification of labour: where the users of a certain media become the producers of the content such as Twitter or Facebook. If we bring the idea of control over the media, in this case the control over the means of production, and we relate it to the idea of commodification it brings us to the concept of hegemony. Hegemony which is a regime that controls society not through force but through persuasion. Ideology in all of this plays an important role. The dominant ideology is just accepted by most people, sometimes it’s not even seen as an ideology anymore but it becomes common knowledge, the ideology is not questioned anymore. The commodified media production thus contributed to establishing capitalist hegemony, through the promotion of a materialist and individualist ideology, particularly as embodied in consumerism. For instance, with advertising, it promoted consumption. But again we are not very aware of that consumerism because it has been so embedded in our society that it is seen as common knowledge and thus not questioned. 5. Explain how media consumption may contribute to political hegemony. Integrate both aspects of political economy and cultural studies in your argumentation. It may be assumed that the ideological role of the media is not effectuated only through purposefully constructed discourses, but implicitly thought addressing audiences primarily as consumers (the promotion of individualism, materialism) Thus, commodified media production contributes to establishing capitalist hegemony, through the promotion of a materialist and individualist ideology, particularly as embodied in consumerism. Hegemony means that the government regime controls society not through force but through persuasion. The dominant ideology is accepted by most people, something you will find the expression that naturalization of ideology which means the ideology is no longer recognized as ideology, but it becomes natural, not questioned by anybody. How does this work in the media? Ex: advertising. First the need to attract, you need the attention of the audience that you are selling. Mass media supports the massive selling of products and the tools to do it advertising. Media are compelled to look for large audiences and this is achieved by mainstreaming content. Capitalist enterprises, commercial companies will produce an ideology that is consistent with the interest of capitalism. The main way of doing that, promotion of Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 consumerism (advertising promotes consumption, promotes the idea that consuming makes you happy). We are not aware of it. We have the culture of well-being, it is inter-commodified, selling well-being, consuming well-being. Viewing culture from political economy, from the perspective of analysis of the system of production and distribution, may reveal how the culture industries reproduce the dominant corporate and commercial culture, excluding discourses and images that contest (go against) the established social system. Clear reference to political economy, it looks at media as being the product of industrial types of production, so influenced by economic mechanism and through that reproducing the dominant cultural. Closer reading of media texts can reveal a wealth of meanings, values, and messages, often contradictory. Examining how people engage cultural texts, however, may reveal that audiences refuse dominant meanings and offer their own, sometimes surprising, interpretations. Cultural studies is introduced by this detour of political economy because historically there is a link, cultural studies grew out of the political economy. There is a duality, one hand the way of working and the conclusion of political economy are accepted, on the other hand, this cultural studies are a critique on political economy because they consider is missing, important oversight (descuido/negligence, omission). This quote implies a different approach, not the study of production systems the approach is the closer reading of media texts, the influence of symbols, images, and messages. And these messages can reveal meanings/values that are contradictory. In orthodox Marxist political economy, the focus is entirely the ideology of the dominant group but even the dominant ideology might be interpreted differently by different people depending on their background. What is important here is that they refuse to go along with the economic reductionism of political economy by focusing on culture and on agency, look how people interpret meaning differently. This also might imply that people develop the capacity to resist the dominant relation in society. 6. What is the link between the theories of the French School in cultural studies and epistemological discussions opposing positivism to interpretivism? The French School was known as the ‘structuralist school’. Roland Barthes brings to the core idea in structuralism, which is that through the media, society can be analyzed as a text. Society is not a reality, but a spectacle, a text, and thus can be analyzed as a text. The idea of text in society was developed in the social theory of structuralism. Structuralism played an important role in contemporary social sciences because it was an important lesson in humility: it pointed to the shortcomings of positivism. Through positivism we can observe the world and construct objective knowledge about it. On the other hand, interpretivism focuses on how people make sense of their social worlds and how they express these understanding (meaning). The observable world is a manifestation Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 of underlying structures and truth is constructed in social interaction, that is, facts never speak for themselves 7. What is meant by the domestication of technologies and why is it exemplary of cultural studies? Domestication of technologies can be illustrated as the way we appropriate technology as something ‘alien’ to make it our own. When the domestication of technologies has been ‘successful’, the technologies are regarded as comfortable, useful tools, functional or symbolic that can be reliable and trustworthy. Principally, domestication of technology means that new technology gets transformed in its appropriation into a family. As users, we shape technology for it to fit us. An example of this would be domestication of the TV (at first, TVs were only in formal and public spaces of houses, like living rooms. But nowadays, TVs have made their way into more intimate areas of a home such as a kitchen or bedroom. This was made in order to point out that these technologies might be more portable and conceptualized even as a part of us). The domestication of technologies is exemplary of cultural studies because these strange and wild technologies have to be house-trained, that is, they have to be integrated into the structures, daily routines and values of users and their environments as if it were a cultural process. Cultural Studies are concerned with the ‘social shaping’ of technology and puts the emphasis on how developers imagine and users make sense of technology. 8. Explain the following statement: technological development is a social process articulated in dominance. Technological development is a social process as new technologies lead to social change. In social determinism, the role of social change is granted to social and political elites, giving them absolute power over technology and society itself. In cultural studies, the user is seen as the most relevant social group in the construction of technological development, with its main entry point being how users make sense of technology. Eventually, technology stabilizes and the interpretative flexibility merges into a predominant meaning. What is certain is that technology shapes and organizes our society, it is a direct response of mixed variants such as societal circumstances, dominant ideologies, and existing power relations. Technological developments eventually become comfortable, useful tools that can be seen as symbolic, reliable, and trustworthy. This vision of technology leads to its ability of social shaping. With media being a large part of the structuration process, contributing in large to this shaping process, this process takes place in an environment articulated in dominance, in which dominance is based on economic inequality at its origins. One of the most striking features of media organization in the capitalist era is the increasing presence of large corporations in cultural production. The first interest of industries in a capitalist system is to maximize profits. Lack of regulations, strong competition, increasingly bigger industries, and unfair market practices have led to a few organizations holding most Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 of the power, especially in cultural production. An example of this is the Murdoch’s News Corporation, it owns over 800 companies in more than 50 countries, with a net worth of over 5 billion USD. These market conditions make it extremely hard for any competition to form and reduce the access to media, and thus to cultural production means, due to a saturation of dominant companies. 9. Why is a technological revolution, as defined by Freeman and Perez, not a social revolution as Marxist thinkers would define it? A technological revolution as defined by Freeman and Perez is purely the introduction of a new technological paradigm, introducing a new way of doing things. After a period of time, this introduction can create a downward turn. It will create a saturation of the market because people have invested in the factories and the technology they are stuck in that market. To solve that we need to create an upward turn. With product innovation, we create a new technological revolution, introducing a new technology on the market. The enterprises will first start buying this new product, then they will offer it to the consumer and open back the market. This can be illustrated with the example of the telephone (it was first used by companies for business communications and later was made available for the general public) However, even if this new technology can affect the whole society and how it works, this does not mean that it will create a social revolution. This technological revolution will change how the people work on a day to day basis but won’t forcefully the relations of power. They will stay the same. In brief, technological revolution is still part of the process of change but on its own won’t create a social revolution because it does not have the fundamental power relations in a society. 10. What is likely to happen in a media market economy that is left free of regulation? Substantiate your answer with examples borrowed from industrial economics. As Curran says, ‘the freedom of the market allows anyone to publish an opinion. This extends participation in public debate, and ensures that all significant points of view are aired. It also means that people are exposed through market competition to contrary views and sources of information.’ A free market is one based on the supply and demand rules, without any type of regulation provided by the government and political institutions. However, what we have witnessed for 200 years now is that when we look at real circumstances, we don’t see perfect competition. It is very rare to find markets in which there is something remotely resembling it. In reality we see concentration tendencies leading to all kinds of market failure. A free media market economy would most likely end in a concentrated market, which is not good because it reduces (and eventually eliminates) diversity. There are several concentration tendencies: monopoly, oligopoly, strategic alignment, technological lock-in. Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 In the end, what we get are things like ‘media moguls’. E.g. by the 2000s, Murdoch’s News Corporation owned over 800 companies in more than 50 countries, with a net worth of over $5 billion (The Sun, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fox, Sky…) If we do not introduce market regulations to correct market failure, avoiding concentration in the media won’t be possible and subsidies for helping stimulate the market won’t be given. With the lots of media channels competing with each other, existing condensation tendencies of the market will arise, diminishing the external diversity of the media. Without regulations, it would be almost impossible to make sure journalists are at arms’ length of private owners. People are directly influenced by commercial constraints imposed by their owners or political preferences that are informally conveyed within the organization. Industrial economics gives us insight on how the market really works, and how different mechanisms are contributing to disrupting it (we call that market failure). If there is market failure, you might try to fix that and the instrument that we have to fix it is regulation. That is why imposing certain rules on the industry in order to avoid concentration. The outcome of concentration is that there isn’t enough diversity. E.g. In Belgium, in the newspaper and TV industries there are only 3 groups left (vertical integration = these groups have been absorbing all the steps between making the news and providing them to the customers -> news are collected by news agencies, transferred to the networks, who will repackage the news and provide them to the customers). A possible solution would be to educate the audiences, so they can make a difference between good news and bad news, fake news and real news… This is called media literacy. It’s a way of the government not having to interfere with the media. 11. Articulate the viewpoint on the ‘information economy’ taken by Tapscot in Wikinomics. Give a critique using arguments taken from the work of Fuchs. Tapscot advocates a liberal theory about how technology and the internet can be used: the increasing use of technology and the internet is creating a new society. For him, everyone has access to its use. It is also these developments that are producing changes in the way we produce, so innovation and new value creation is present. He calls this new model of production "peer production", where large companies collaborate with each other to achieve new advances. Technology is creating a new model of society, the information society, and therefore a new paradigm in the economy: the information economy. Fuchs contradicts him, he presents a critique based on Marx's theory. Therefore, technology companies exploit users and power relations are still present because technology is part of society and develops according to the ideology present in it. Fuchs calls this economic reductionism. Furthermore, he makes it clear that not everyone has access to technological tools, whether for material or cognitive reasons. He talks about the fact that, of course, commodification is present, there is a surplus value, and that technologies and the internet promote consumerism and the ideas of capitalism. Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 12. Explains Fuchs view on the internet and the economy and give a critique of Fuchs, using the arguments presented by Garnham. Fuchs says that we should analyze the political economy of social media platforms when making judgements about their participatory character. If there are, for example, asymmetries in terms of visibility and attention, then it is questionable that corporate social media are truly participatory. It is also important to analyze the negative aspects of social media in order to temper the uncritical social media-optimism that is an ideological manifestation of the search for new capital accumulation models that wants to exploit user labour in order to raise the profit rate in the digital media industry. In this sense, Fuchs refers to Marx’ value theory of labour: Commodities are sold at prices that are higher than the investment costs so that profit is generated = Surplus value, for example value that is not needed for survival (reproduction) =˃ Inequality: the capitalist appropriates part of the labour time, that is, a part of the surplus value For Fuchs, there are different means to increase revenue and productivity enhanced by social media: targeted advertising, extensive market monitoring and prosumption. In all these instances, part of the production (or labour time) is transferred from the producer to the consumer. Thus, the consumer has now, at least in part, become the producer of his or her own consumption. According to Fuchs, social media and the mobile Internet make the audience commodity ubiquitous. Besides, Internet user commodification is part of the tendency of the commodification of everything that has resulted in the generalization of the factory and of exploitation. Neoliberal capitalism has largely widened the boundaries of what is treated as a commodity. Likewise, for Fuchs commercial social media are spheres of the exploitation of user labour and at the same time objects of ideological mystifications that idealize social media in order to detract attention from their class character or advance the attraction of investors and the creation and expansion of spheres of capital accumulation. Commercial social media show that exploitation/capital accumulation and ideology are two important and entangled dimensions of the media in capitalism. In conclusion, the Internet and social media are today stratified, non-participatory spaces and an alternative, non-corporate Internet is needed. Basically, an Internet revolution is needed through which ‘the people’ take over the Internet (and thus the global factory. Looking at the critique of Fuch’s theory by Garnham, he begins by saying that their theories of both economy and polity were designed for very different conditions and that they aren't relevant in a contemporary environment. What is required is not a going back but a going beyond which takes into account the very real theoretical inadequacies of Marxism and the lessons learnt by political economists, and citizens at large, from analysing and experiencing 150 years of capitalist development and attempts at socialist transformation. In conclusion, Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 there is a need to look beyond Marx’s interpretation and apply it relevantly to the contemporary environment. 13. Develop both a cultural studies and a political economy perspective on social media, comparing the theories of Jenkins and Fuchs respectively. ‘One should analyze the political economy of social media platforms when making judgements about their participatory character. If there are, for example, asymmetries in terms of visibility and attention, then it is questionable that corporate social media are truly participatory.’ So if you want to see the participatory potential of social media you need to look at the underlying political economy, if there is inequality in the visibility, then the relations of power are articulated in dominance (this is the case, we don’t have equal access to the internet and are mentally equipped to deal with information and use it) Fuchs’ main assumption dictates that ‘It is also important to analyze the negative aspects of social media in order to temper the uncritical social media-optimism that is an ideological manifestation of the search for new capital accumulation models that wants to exploit user labour in order to raise the profit rate in the digital media industry.’ There are not only inequalities in power relations but also negative effects related to social media. There is optimism about social media, we need to temper that optimism because there are a lot of negative aspects, if we want to understand why this is, then we need to understand the model of capital accumulation that is underlying, that capital accumulation model exploits user labour to raise profit. To reference a Marxist thought; “Relative surplus value production means that productivity is increased so that more commodities and more surplus value can be produced in the same time period as before” indicating economic mechanism, a mechanism that wants to increase relative surplus by increasing productivity. Fuchs refers to Marx’ value theory of labour when saying that commodities are sold at prices that are higher than the investment costs so that profit is generated (Commodification) this then equals surplus value (profit, extra value), i.e. value that is not needed for survival (reproduction) How does this support inequality? The capitalist appropriates part of the labour time, i.e. part of the surplus value (capitalist who controls the means of production, increases capability of the capitalist, their power). User commodification leads to different means to increase revenue and productivity enhanced by social media. Targeted advertising is on the basis of accurate customer information, advertisement can be tailored and distributed more effectively and cheaply (social media have a lot of information on the users and consumption patterns etc. and they use this information which is user generated information which in principle belongs to the user but they appropriate that information in order to make a profile of their customers). Extensive market monitoring means that clicks are monitored and resold as marketing data and lastly, presumption in which users consume information that has been produced by themselves (Not paid, just used and resold) In all these instances, part of the production (or labour time) is transferred from the producer to the consumer (the value of the labour time is acquired, appropriated by the owner of the Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 social media). The consumer has now, at least in part, become the producer of his or her own consumption A culturalist approach is explored by Henry Jenkins. Jenkins focused more on fan communities. The focus here is on participation: fans speak back to the networks and producers and make the culture industry respect their ideas. This indicates the presence of an interactive process which balances out power relations between fans and industries). Consumers/audiences play an active role in ‘spreading’ content; consumers are grassroots advocates for materials which are personally and socially meaningful to them. Audiences can be seen as ‘rebelling’ and ‘resisting’. Audiences shape media flows so that Culture becomes ‘far more participatory’. Members can easily spread content as well and the easy entry to social media stimulates people in becoming creators themselves. They also think they have an audience that listens to them which forms a sense of being a community. Jenkins mistakenly assumes an automatic connection with fandom in popular culture and political protest which associates fan culture with politics. Fuchs says ‘He [...] cannot explain why these communities should make fans more interested and active in politics’. Fans are mistaken for activists/lobbyists. Questioning online Fascism as participatory culture? Jenkins answers that fan communities ‘find the ability to question and rework the ideologies that dominate the mass culture” however, fan communities are just as likely to reproduce dominant ideologies (like racism). The problems with the culturalist approach via a political economy critique are that it ignores questions about the ownership of platforms/companies, collective decision-making profit, etc. (who owns these platforms). Furthermore, it ignores issues related to social inequality (Are all people equally capable of being engaged) (we don’t live in a society where everyone is able to participate to the same extent) (=participation = utopia?) and finally it overestimates the cognitive (and material > time) capabilities of people meaning we may never live in a society where every member is able to fully participate. 14. How does Habermas theory relate to rational choice and Marxist political theories? How can you reconcile both viewpoints? Habermas’ intellectual approach is about idealization, how it should be, and generalization, how the public sphere is inherent to democracy. If the public sphere is not properly working, democracy is not either. We have seen that market theory and the Marxist economist is about distancing the market and the state or enterprise and the government. In market theory, the firm and the individual are pretty much the same thing. Habermas, however, shows how the public sphere fills the void that is created and makes a link between individuals and government. For him, the public sphere must take place in a place that is accessible to all of society, the debate must be rational and critical, and opinions must be legitimized by the authorities. It is here that he connects with rational theory, which in turn is the theory of political science based on neoclassicism. Habermas implies that everyone must participate in the political debate. Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 However, Habermas is also critical of his own idea of what the public sphere is like. He is aware that it has been destroyed by different groups and their economic interests, one of which is the media. Information should be neutral for the public sphere to function properly, but this is not the case, and spaces have also been colonized by corporate interests. This is where the connection to Marx's ideas lies. Habermas is therefore now aware that his idea of the public sphere is an idealism. For him, this should be how he defends rational theory, however, he believes that the ideas developed by Marx and applied to communication are real and that the public sphere is subject to the interests of large corporations. This the reconciliation of both viewpoints 15. How and why do ‘celebrity politics’ in the media contribute to political hegemony? How does this phenomenon illustrate aspects of both political economy and cultural studies? The term media hegemony derives from the philosophical thought of Marx and Gramsci. Marx and Gramsci agreed that the elite, the dominant social group, is responsible for controlling the media, and that mass media promoted the dominant ideology. Celebrity politics is the phenomenon of a relevant person using their background, fame and popularity as a platform to influence others (the audiences) on political issues. These people use their status to speak up on specific causes for particular interests intending to influence political outcomes. There are two different types of Celebrity Politicians: The ‘Elected Politician’: someone whose background was/is in entertainment, business or sport, and trades it to get elected. The ‘Celebrity’: an elected politician or candidate who uses the forms and associations of the celebrity to enhance their image and communicate their message. The ‘Entertainer who engages in Politics’: a celebrity who claims the right to represent people and causes, but does so without aiming to be elected as a politician. They engage with public gestures or statements aimed at changing specific public policy decisions. They are taken seriously in respect of their political views, they have credibility. Both types are a form of linking politics with the world of entertainment. From the perspective of Political Economy, the concept of celebrity politicians take place in the form of representation, being heavily criticized. The ‘Elected Politician’ impoverishes the relationship between representatives and is represented by marginalizing issues of political substance in favor of irrelevant gestures and superficial appearances. Builds on ideological distinctions between the trivial (entertainment) and the serious (politics) (the first would infect the second). The ‘Celebrity’ boasts irrelevant qualities and superficial knowledge that does not justify their claim to “represent”’. They question the fundamental mechanism of political representation. Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 The ‘Entertainer who engages in Politics’ comes from an assumption that representation means informing citizens of political judgement. Their critics argument that they do so by flaunting superficial, irrelevant and trivial knowledge and characteristics. Regardless of the critics, they continue to intervene in the market trying to show there is a correlation between succeeding at politics and at being a successful entrepreneur. They use marketing techniques to sell themselves or endorse a product (e.g. a policy or politician). Celebrity politics can also be understood from a Cultural Studies perspective, focusing more elaborately on the role that popular culture plays in politics. This is also very much critiqued, because ‘the assumption is that the political use of popular culture is a cynical expression of a desperate popularity, one in which presentation and appearance substitute for policy and principle’. Celebrity politics, according to critics, fall outside the domain of proper political representation. They lead to a significant decrease in the importance of politics and traditional political tools, and instead there is a substantial increase in trivial entertainment appearances. The opposite point of view on pop culture also seems important. According to Stephen Coleman, popular culture is able to interact with people at a level, where traditional tools of politics are severely limited. In conclusion, celebrity politics can have both a positive and negative impact on the world of politics. On the one hand, celebrity politics can bring positive effects in the form of heightened political participation or an increase in interest in important social issues. On the contrary, celebrity politics can negatively contribute to the issue of social activity among the citizens. Very often celebrities do not have the appropriate competences and knowledge to express themselves on complex issues such as politics or social topics. As a result, traditional forms of politics take trivial forms and become meaningless. Nevertheless, political representation should be seen as a cultural act aimed at arousing political attractiveness among the citizens through the apparatus of pop culture. 16. Why is there a conflict between the representation and the information function of the media? The information function indicates that; ‘…the media can also be viewed in a more expansive way, in liberal theory, as an agency of information and debate which in this view, free media brief the electorate, and assist voters to make an informed choice at election time. Independent media also provide a channel of communication between the government and the governed. Above all, the media provide a forum of debate in which people can identify problems, propose solutions, reach agreement and guide the public direction of society.’ All this can best be achieved in the liberal view through the free market. The freedom of the market allows anyone to publish an opinion. This extends participation in public debate and ensures that all significant points of view are aired. It also means that people are exposed through market competition to contrary views and sources of information. Representing people to authority is, in liberal theory, a key democratic function of the media. After having briefed the people and staged a debate, the media relay the public consensus Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 that results from this debate to the government. People reach consensus in the public sphere and these opinions need publicity, the media represent the people to the government, they present the consensus to the government. From the consensus theory, it also sees media as an agency of information and debate. For instance, free media brief the electorate, and assist voters to make an informed choice at election time. Independent media also provide a channel of communication between the government and the governed. It also means that people are exposed through market competition to contrary views and sources of information. Above all, the media provides a forum of debate in which people can identify problems, propose solutions, reach agreements and guide the public direction of society. However, from the conflict perspective, theorists believe that the media serves to reinforce the distance and discord between genders, different races and ethnicities and social classes, rather than promoting social harmony. These factors expose the myth of having a ‘free market’; high costs of market entry curtail the freedom to publish, free-market favours human interest at the expense of information, the market restricts participation in public debate. It generates information-rich media for elites, and information-poor media for the general public and the market undermines intelligent and rational debate. Market-oriented media tend to generate information that is simplified, personalized, de-contextualized, with stress on action rather than process, visualization rather than abstraction, stereo-typicality rather than human complexity. The consensus approach believes that public debate is more likely to produce rational and just outcomes if it takes account of different views and interests. But at the heart of this approach is a lot of stress on the need for civic information, public participation, robust debate and active self-determination. There are other key factors limiting consumer influence which includes: concentration of media ownership (so not everybody is represented), and the resources that giant media corporations have limited competition and manages demand, high market entry costs (see sunk costs- a cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered) and the operation of the market: high sales or ratings produce not only large receipts but also major economies of scale. To solve these unequal balances in the media, one must first input market regulations: correct market failure: Antitrust regulation and safeguards to access (pricing, social tariffs …), input stimulation: Licensing - public service obligations, Subsidies: e.g. investigative journalism; civil society initiatives. Further, a mix of internal and external diversity is essential through public service media: information – representation and (Small) engaged media: watchdog – representation. Thirdly, the public service media should be at arm’s length of the government. The private (mass) media should be under surveillance (or impose public service obligations? doesn’t really work), newsroom independence should be instated and finally, education is vital, to have your audience educated. The extent to which the media support the functioning of democracy largely depends on the quality of that democracy. Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 17. Discuss the different factors that influence the construction of the news from a production and from a consumption perspective. How do these factors fit in a political economy, cultural and a studies perspective? In a capitalist view on the media, there are three important facts: - Ideology: the media is controlled by economic interest groups and is looked at as a vehicle of ideology, as a way for the economic elite to divulge the economy and turn it into a dominant economy. - Communication and control: the control over the media is concentrated in the hands of a few groups. The media represents 3-5 groups in society. - Concentration: theory limits itself, so it is usually concentrated in one company and that has all the power, this is central to Marxist theory. The influence of market mechanisms on the media is operated primarily through the process of commodification. At the origin information and content are public goods. These are turned into private goods that are sold for a profit. Commodified media production contributes to establishing capitalist hegemony, through the promotion of a materialist and individualist ideology, particularly as embodied in consumerism. Advertising can play an important role in shaping the meaning that a social group gives to an artifact. There is also a participatory culture which is shaped by the media. You as a user participate in circulation of news content, which causes you to become a creator of news as well. This causes that consumers/audiences play an active role in ‘spreading’ content. Audiences can be seen as ‘rebelling’ and ‘resisting’ and shape media flows so that culture becomes ‘far more participatory’. The news is influenced by power relations which is ownership of for example the government that controls the media or bloggers, activists and journalists who increasingly co-construct the news. The news is also influenced by affordances which is the potential offered by technology. Affordances shape the direction of social media. Social media has also been shown to privilege formal modes of political participation over informal (radical and anti-systemic) modes and individual over collective participation to increase surveillance from government and business to manipulation and propaganda like for example Trump. The media is often still very connected to the government which causes them to only be able to broadcast news items that are approved by the government. This is called the watchdog function. Some media are still subject to censorship or to licensing regime (need to get authorization from the government to broadcast). 18. Explain what structuration theory contributes to understanding the media and how this is a critique on Marxist political economy of the media. Explain this critique in terms of theories on structure and action. If you want to answer this question of how the media can be understood through the structuration theory and what the critiques of political economy are one must build upon three different important theories. The first one is the structuration theory by Giddens. Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 Structure and Agency both explain how individuals are connected in a society Agency: people are connected through freedom, choice, individuality, free will. Individuals act on their own. It is simply the capacity to influence/ change a situation. Structure on the other hand explains people are connected in terms of determinism, constraints, social pressure, public opinion. Individuals act within a fixed structure, the relation between agency and structure is captured by the concept of structuration: the day to day (unconscious) repetition of the acts of individual agents which reproduces the structure. For example, through consumption, the economic structure is daily reproduced. Giddens calls this ‘practical consciousness’: we are generally unaware of our actions and their effects (but we can become aware of them). Further, Giddens elaborated this theory on the economic structuration; But here we can critique his view on political economy because his theory doesn’t say anything about the articulation economy, politics, culture and a fortiori of the 'determination by the economic’. We are left with the question of: to what extent can the economy (or the economic system) be said to structure society (other social sub-systems)? The second theory that is important to understand is the one by Bourdieu, the Field theory. He further elaborated on the structure-agency dilemma, with ideas of Marxist theory, he allows to conceptualize the importance of the economy (without falling into orthodox Marxism = economic determinism). Bourdieu will also focus more on the concept of agency because he elaborates on the autonomy of the different social systems, through using the concept of capital. Some examples of these ‘capitals’ are economic capital, cultural capital (formal: diploma /informal: how people distinguish themselves from others) and social capital. An important note is that for him: capitals are exchangeable and interconnected. Why can we say that Bourdieu focuses more on agency than on structure; because of his elaboration on the concept ‘habitus’ and for him, Habitus are mental schemes that shape people’s perception and attitudes. It is the connection between perceptions and behaviors. Why can we say that Bourdieu’s avoids falling into the pitfall of economic reductionism because Bourdieu describes the habitus as mental schemes as the following structured structures; our mental structures are shaped by social structures, structures; mental schemes to look at reality/ decode reality/ different between persons and the amount of capitals and structuring structures; our mental structures structure our day-to-day behavior. We behave according to our perceptions of reality, through our actions we structure the social fields (day to day behavior). So, different from Giddens, Bourdieu does answer the question of: to what extent can the economy (or the economic system) structure society (other social sub-systems)? He adds economy into the theory as one example of “capital”, by saying that there are different sorts of capitals he does not fall into the trap of being an economic reductionist The third theory that is important to understand is the Schemata theory. This is more of a psychological theory because this theory contributes to the notion of habitus which is partially based on the notion of schemata connected the theory of Bourdieu on habitus/ field theory with media theory through the phenomena of perception. Schemata are mental structures consisting of information categories and connections between them, in simpler terms; concepts and the relations between them concepts are interrelated, which constitute with other sub-concepts. Resonance helps in recognizing specific objects and categorizing them. Highly resonating information is more likely to be recognized, assimilated and remembered than lowly resonating information. Schematic inference cautions that schemes Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 can also be misleading and deceptive as people routinely use schemata to fill in missing or ambiguous information and these schemata can base on incomplete information Now, we can answer the question: what structuration theory contributes to understanding the media. In order to do that we have to connect all three theories, but luckily someone else did that for us. Stuart Hall elaborated among other things on ‘culture’, for him culture is the outcome of a structuration process, individual mental structures jointly constitute culture and how this common pool of images shape our individual schemes through communication. Media work in a kind of cycle. Representation of things (and underlying cultural schemes = schemata) conveys to the media in the linear view of media (seeing things in a single perspective which is problematic), gives rise to interpretation. This process of interpreting media is NOT linear, media messages are sometimes interpreted selectively/ messages are filtered and changed through the process of interpretation. Structuration theory helps to understand how the media works because it focuses on the relations between agency and structure. The sender makes certain representations (frames/schemes), these representations are taken over by the media, media messages then lead to understanding/perception of the receiver and this perception influences their behavior (communicative). Their interpretations are influenced depending on the position in the social- field + this structuration process will have an influence on the political economy on how the media selects certain representation made by people in society. People produce the messages hence, messages are not neutral (framing of realty). Media will select/ not select the messages (agenda-setting), then media will reframe the messages and then influence the receivers (filter/resist/accept info) through behavior. How society is structured influences socio-economic stratification or the political economy 19. Explain Bourdieu’s field theory and notion of habitus can be applied to media consumption. Bourdieu in contrary to Giddens allows himself to conceptualize the importance of the economic and develops four notions of capital in the case of Giddens it was ‘resources’. He states that there are 3 notions of capital (economic-, cultural- and symbolic capital), these capitals are exchangeable: teachers exchange cultural capital for economic capital. He designs a model with tension fields where we can observe distinctions that is how people distinguish themselves by taste. Another concept coined by Bourdieu was that one of Habitus. Habitus is a set of mental schemes that shapes people’s perception and attitudes. They can be described as ‘structured structures’ which is our mental structures being shaped by social structures and ‘structuring structures’ which is that our mental structures structure our day to day behavior. Media which is a social structure informs people and this information helps in the shaping our mental structures à structured structures. Through media representation our mental structures are shaped and structure our daily behavior because we internalize what is represented on media as the norm. Media also reproduces social structures. Bourdieu’s theory points out cultural inequality in the society since people have unequal access to the 3 capitals and resources are unequally distributed. This inequality can be approached through conflict or consensus theory. Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 20. Explain how the psychological concept of schemata fits into Bourdieu’s theory of habitus and how this helps to understand how people decode media messages. A field is a setting in which agents and their social positions are located. The position of each particular agent in the field is a result of interaction between the specific rules of the field (agent’s habitus) and the agent’s capital (social economic and cultural). Fields interact with each other, and have a hierarchy: most are subordinate to the larger field of power and class relation. An important note is that for him: capitals are exchangeable and interconnected. He focuses more on agency than on structure; because of his elaboration on the concept ‘habitus’ and for him, Habitus are mental schemes that shape people’s perception and attitudes. It is the connection between perceptions and behaviours. Bourdieu describes the habitus as mental schemes as: structured structures→ our mental structures are shaped by social structures, structures; mental schemes to look at reality/ decode reality/differences between persons and the number of capitals structuring structure→ our mental structures structure our day-to-day behaviour. We behave according to our perceptions of reality; through our actions, we structure the social fields (day to day behaviour). Simplified with two dimensions The Schemata theory is more of a psychological theory because this theory contributes to the notion of habitus which is partially based on notion of schemata connected the theory of Bourdieu on habitus/ field theory with media theory through the phenomena of perception. Schemata are mental structures consisting of information categories and connections between them, in simpler terms; concepts and the relations between them concepts are interrelated, which constitute with other sub-concepts. A central claim of Schemata theory is that our knowledge of the world is organized and categorized and this can influence our behavior. Resonance helps in recognizing specific objects and categorize them. Highly resonating information is more likely to be recognized, assimilated and remembered than lowly resonating information. Schematic inference cautions that schemes can also be misleading Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|36295631 and deceptive as people routinely use schemata to fill in missing or ambiguous information and these schemata can base on incomplete information example: sterotypes. Media which is a social structure informs people and this information helps in the shaping our mental structures à structured structures. Through media representation our mental structures are shaped and structure our daily behavior because we internalize what is represented on media as the norm. Media also reproduces social structures. Bourdieu’s theory points out cultural inequality in the society since people have unequal access to the 3 capitals and resources are unequally distributed. This inequality can be approached through conflict or consensus theory. Depending on the cultural capital an individual has, they will be able to decode a message or not. It depends on your background and what field you were born in that your decoding ability will be more or less developed. Downloaded by sarra cerda ([email protected])